The Commission will consider a request for continuance to a later date. The Commission may choose to continue the item to the date proposed below, to continue the item to another date, or to hear the item on this calendar.

1a. 2001.0249CV (K. AMDUR: (415) 558-6351)

605 KEARNY STREET - west side between Sacramento and Commercial Streets, Lot 7 in Assessor's Block 226 - Request for a Conditional Use authorization for a building exceeding 35 feet in heightin the Chinatown Community Business (CCB) Zoning District and a 50-N Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to add one four-story dwelling unit to an existing one-story commercial building on a small, approximately 700 square foot, 29.5-foot deep lot. The commercial unit on the ground floor would remain. The building would be 50 feet in height with the proposed addition. The addition, like the existing commercial building, would cover the entire small site. No parking would be provided. Both a parking and a rear yard/site coverage variance would be required and will be considered by the Zoning Administrator at the same hearing as the Conditional Use authorization. Required open space would be provided on a rooftop terrace.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 22, 2004)

(Proposed for Continuance to October 7, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to October 7, 2004.

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

1b. 2001.0249CV (K. AMDUR: 558-6351)

605 KEARNY STREET - west side between Sacramento and Commercial Streets, Lot 7 in Assessor's Block 226 - Request for a Variance for rear yard/site coverage and parking for a building in the Chinatown Community Business (CCB) Zoning District and a 50-N Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to add one four-story dwelling unit to an existing one-story commercial building on a small, approximately 700 square foot, 29.5-foot deep lot. The commercial unit on the ground floor would remain. The building would be 50 feet in height with the proposed addition. The addition, like the existing commercial building, would cover the entire small site, and no parking would be provided. Required open space would be provided on a rooftop terrace. Conditional use authorization is also required for a building in the CCB to exceed 35 feet in height.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 22, 2004)

Proposed for Continuance to October 7, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to October 7, 2004

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

2. Commission Comments/Questions

Commissioner W. Lee:

Re: Planning Director Search Status

- He is receiving a lot of calls related to the status for the search of a Planning Director. What is the status?

Commissioner Bradford Bell:

Re: Planning Director Search Status

- Since she returned from her trip she has not had time to speak to the Chair of the search committee. As soon as that is done, she will communicate with the Commissioners.

Commissioner Olague:

Re: Bringing Back Public Comment to the Beginning of the Calendar

- She has asked this before and wants to know how this item can be scheduled for discussion?

Commissioner Hughes:

Re: Bringing Back Public Comment to the Beginning of the Calendar

- He is not ready to give his comment about this today but with a bit of research the issue can be discussed in order to know how this Commission's practice is related to the other Commissions and Board of Supervisors.

Commissioner Antonini:

Re: Bringing Back Public Comment to the Beginning of the Calendar

- Does the public comment period last 15 minutes?

Commission Secretary Responded:

Re: Bringing Back Public Comment to the Beginning of the Calendar

- When she started with the Commission there was no time limit on general public comment.

- At one time, it seemed that too much time was devoted to this and it caused an impact on items that were scheduled behind it. They tried setting a 15 minute time limit, but it was not usually followed. Ultimately, following a public hearing, the Commission amended their Rules and Regulations to change the Order of Business for their public meetings, and placed Public Comment at the end of the calendar.

Commissioner Sue Lee:

Re: Bringing Back Public Comment to the Beginning of the Calendar

- She is open to discuss this issue.

- She is interested in seeing the research.

Commissioner William Lee:

Re: Bringing Back Public Comment to the Beginning of the Calendar

- This should be scheduled.

Commissioner Bradford Bell:

Re: Bringing Back Public Comment to the Beginning of the Calendar

- She would like to have this issue scheduled when there is a full Commission.

Director Green responded:

- He will work with Ms. Avery and provide this information to the Commission ahead of time.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

3. Director's Announcements

Re: Briefing on the SRO Policies

- This will be scheduled on September 23, 2004 under Director's Report.

Re: Listing of all Major Environmental Review on Major City Work

- He placed in the Commissioner's correspondence folder a draft with this information.

- The Commission should look this over and make comments at the next hearing, which will be September 23, 2004.

4. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals

BOS - None

BOA - None

5. (L. BADINER: (415) 558-6350)

Status Report on 727 Van Ness Avenue as a response to comments raised during Public Comment at the Planning Commission hearing on September 2, 2004.

SPEAKER(S):

John Sanger - Representing Van Ness Towers

- He is aware of the request for Discretionary Review and request for determination.

- There are some things that he disagrees with Mr. Badiner on.

- Both applications are before the Commission.

- The plans attached to the permit application were not sufficient to DBI.

- There was a necessity for a Variance on rear yard and parking requirements.

- There was an appeal of the Variance decision, which added 5 months to the timeline after the Conditional Use was approved.

- He will be submitting a brief on this.

Charles Marsteller

- He is concerned about the policy aspects of this decision.

- It is important for the Planning Commission to review this project.

Sue Hestor

- The Commission is being made a "laughing stock" if they allow staff to change the policy of a project.

- The Commission should bring this back and review the changes.

ACTION: No Action Required.

6. 1999.210C (J. PURVIS: 415-558-6354)

3620 19th STREET - north side between Guerrero and Oakwood Streets; Lots 18, 68, 70 in Assessor's Block 3752 - Status report and Commission comment on a 39-unit residential planned unit development approved by the Planning Commission under Motion No. 16134 on April 5, 2001, and amended, on appeal, by the Board of Supervisors under Board Resolution No. M01-76 on July 2, 2001. The project site has been sold and the new owners have modified the design. It is within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) and RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 2, 2004)

SPEAKER(S):

Andrew Junius

- There was a very significant community meeting.

- They are very confident that many if not all of the concerns have been addressed.

- Removal of underground parking, reduction of units, significant addition to the landscaping.

- There are a lot of other minor changes that were required by the Board of Supervisors.

- He looks forward to moving ahead as quickly as possible.

- The project team is available to answer any questions.

Saandra Nazzal

- Is the project a new subdivision and will it be processed as a new subdivision?

- If there is an appeal period, when would it start?

- Will the Commission make a ruling today?

- She was not aware of the previous meeting.

Eileen Gold

- She has lived on 19th Street for 18 years.

- This plan has been an issue to all the neighbors.

- The lives of the neighbors will be disrupted for a year while this is being constructed.

- Why can't the Planning Department work with DBI to deal with the issues.

- The developer is winning and the neighborhood needs to win also.

Cordelia Brown

- Her family recently purchased a home on Oakwood Street.

- They are planning to reside in the back cottage that's adjacent to the project.

- They will have to take out a back wall that was put in illegally. The window they will install will face the windows of the proposed project.

- They would like some of the garden space put in behind their building.

- She asked that the building be set back a bit further if they cannot allow some of the open space.

Dallas Haines

- He has lived on 19th Street for about 7 years.

- He has signatures of people that agree with removing the underground parking lot.

- The aesthetics of the new proposal is much more in keeping with the neighborhood.

- The neighbors have seen the new design and approve it.

- He and many neighbors are supportive of the new design.

Lorane Hanes

- He supports this project and would like to see it get started.

- He has never seen a neighborhood come so close and be supportive of this.

ACTION: No Action Required.

D. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS WHERE THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED

At this time, members of the public who wish to address the Commission on agenda items that have already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the public hearing has been closed, must do so at this time. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

Re: 464 30th Street

Mark Madsen

- He is one of the 50 petitioners who is thankful to the Commissioners who were able to do a site visit.

- There is a great deal of discrepancies between the plans and the actual project.

- He presented documentation on why this report is inaccurate and misleading.

- He urges the Commission to consider this.

Nancy Davis

- She expressed her thanks to the Commissioners who came to see the project.

- It is important to preserve the enjoyment and tranquility of their homes.

John Sanger

- They took the Commissioner's concerns quite seriously.

- They devised and went back to the Discretionary Review requester with revised plans.

- He had not received a response until a day before yesterday, which did not allow enough time to provide the appropriate copies to the department.

- The Commission did not give direction to preserve views.

- He displayed a diagram of the façade of the building.

- He feels that they have been quite reasonable.

Christopher Moscone

- He did respond to Mr. Sanger's proposal and they did take some time to respond because of vacations, etc.

- He did not get a response to their response until [just] before the hearing.

- He appreciates the time that the Commission has taken on this and will allow more time if necessary to try to work out minor differences.

Claire Pilcher

- This is not a view issue as Mr. Sanger states.

- The garden in the back of one of the neighbors is actually unbelievable so the issue here is not about view but of livability.

Re: 77 Bluxome Street

John Behanna

- He has had his art studio for many years.

- Bluxome Street works because there are a number of businesses there.

- Bluxome Street is at its limit with long-term parking.

Sue Hestor

- She would like to have this project continued until the Commission has a staff report

- She does not know if Ms. Barkley has new plans.

Alice Barkley

- She displayed the new plans of the project--specifically the courtyard.

- All the units at the podium level have direct access to the courtyard.

- This project will not be a live/work project.

- She would be more than happy to view the new plans, but the Commission and staff have this information.

Charles Brelinger

- He has received various letters of support.

- There has been very favorable feedback from the community

Charles Lorencen

- There are going to be SROs popping up in the future.

- Perhaps the issue here is density.

- This project is being built to the maximum capacity.

- He urged the Commission to reduce the density and the number of units and make the units larger.

- There are safety concerns related to SRO's.

- He feels that a Mandatory Discretionary Review would be most adequate.

Sean Keagran

- He read a letter from the SOMA Leadership Council who supports the project.

Joe O'Donaghue

- There are many SRO's in various cities of the United States.

- Many people don't seem to like people moving in and out of SRO's.

- The units being built in other cities are actually even quite smaller.

- This project is a good project so long as it meets the standards imposed by the Commission.

Jeremy Nelson - Transportation for a Livable City

- He was concerned previously with the garage, but the project sponsor has reduced it to an acceptable width.

- He displayed maps of San Francisco showing the various districts and showing which ones are transit friendly areas, where car share locations are, etc.

E. CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION - PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

7. 2004.0506D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

464 30TH STREET - north side between Noe and Sanchez Streets. Assessor's Block 6639 Lot 020 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004 0310 8295, to construct horizontal and vertical additions to the existing one family dwelling including a full third story and a rear extension in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and approve the project as proposed.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 12, 2004)

NOTE: On August 12, 2004, after public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and continued the item to September 9, 2004 by a vote of +5-0. Commissioner Bradford Bell was absent.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project consistent with plans submitted to the Commission dated August 18, 2004, including:

1) The length of the second story of the rear two story extension shall be reduced by six (6) feet.

2) The roof line of the building shall be stepped down by one foot six inches (1'6") at the rear of the existing building and by two feet six inches (2'6") eight (8) feet beyond the existing building.

3) The rear eight (8) feet of the third story shall be setback an additional seven feet four inches (7'4") from west.

4) The rear fourteen (14) feet of the east side of the third story shall be setback three (3) feet to a depth slightly below the height of the second floor ceiling.

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, S. Lee, W. Lee

NAYES: Hughes and Olague

8a. 2004.0676D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

77 BLUXOME STREET - south side between 4th and 5th Streets; Lot 019 in Assessor's Block 3786, within an SSO (Service/Secondary Office) Mixed-Use District, and a 65-X Height and Bulk District in the Industrial Protection Zone. Mandatory Discretionary Review under Resolution No. 16202 of Demolition Permit Application No. 2003.06.10.6727 to demolish a two-story commercial building, formerly used as PDR space, and its replacement by a seven-story, 108-unit SRO (Single Room Occupancy) residential building with a 16-space residential parking garage on the ground floor, subject to a rear yard modification.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the demolition permit.

NOTE: On August 12, 2004, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and made a motion to not take Discretionary Review and Approve the Project by a vote of +2-3 (Commissioners Hughes, Olague and S. Lee voted No). The motion failed to carry. The Commission continued this item to September 9, 2004 to allow the absent Commissioner to participate. Commissioner Bradford Bell was absent.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project.

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

NAYES: Olague

8b. 2004.0677D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

77 BLUXOME STREET - south side between 4th and 5th Streets; Lot 019 in Assessor's Block 3786, within an SSO (Service/Secondary Office) Mixed-Use District, and a 65-X Height and Bulk District in the Industrial Protection Zone - Mandatory Discretionary Review under Resolution No. 16202 of Building Permit Application No. 2003.06.10.6726 to construct a seven-story, 108-unit SRO residential building following the demolition of a two-story commercial building.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as proposed.

NOTE: On August 12, 2004, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and made a motion to not take Discretionary Review and Approve the Project by a vote of +2-3 (Commissioners Hughes, Olague and S. Lee voted No). The motion failed to carry. The Commission continued this item to September 9, 2004 to allow the absent Commissioner to participate. Commissioner Bradford Bell was absent.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project as modified by the sponsor: convert one of the dwelling units on each floor for a community room.

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

8c. 2003.0366V (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

77 BLUXOME STREET - south side between 4th and 5th Streets; Lot 019 in Assessor's Block 3786, within an SSO (Service/Secondary Office) Mixed-Use District, and a 65-X Height and Bulk District in the Industrial Protection Zone. Request for Rear Yard Modification under Planning Code Section 134 (e) to construct an 65-foot-tall, seven-story SRO residential building, with open space provided within a 1,530 square-foot inner court, a 420 square-foot rear setback, and a 3,400 square foot roof deck in lieu of the 2,100 square foot (25 percent of lot area) standard rear yard.

NOTE: On August 12, 2004, following public testimony, the Acting Zoning Administrator continued this item to September 9, 2004.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and has taken the matter under advisement.

F. REGULAR CALENDAR

The 9 was taken out of order and followed item 12:

9. 2004.0645C (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

5825-5845 MISSION STREET, 50-68 OLIVER STREET & 846-848 BRUNSWICK STREET (aka SAN FRANCISCO CHRISTIAN CENTER)Lots 2,3,5,14,15,27 Assessor's Block 6472 - Request for conditional use authorization to amend a Planned Unit Development previously authorized by the Planning Commission under Motion No. 16517. The proposal includes the construction of a three-story 4,550 square-foot horizontal addition to the rear of the existing church building located at 5825 Mission Street. This amendment requires conditional use findings for non-residential use size over 4,000 square feet for the proposed addition to the church building pursuant to Planning Code Sections 711.21, 121.2 & 303(c) . Lots 2 & 27 of the project site are located in an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District, and lots 3,5,14 & 15 are located in an RH-1 (Residential House, One-family) District. The entire site lies in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Steve Currier - Outer Mission Residents Association

- It is nice to support a project instead of protesting it.

- This church has turned that area around.

- Parking was a condition that was previously addressed.

(+) Jeremy Nelson - San Francisco for a Livable City

- He supports this project.

- The parking should not be that much of an impact.

ACTION: Approved with Conditions as proposed.

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

MOTION: 16856

10. 2004.0617C (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

1458-1462 GRANT AVENUE - southeast corner at Union Street, Lot 021 in Assessor's Block 0115 - Request for conditional use authorization to establish a full-service restaurant (dba "North Beach Pizza") of approximately 2,500 square feet within the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The project consists of relocating two existing restaurants and consolidating them into one restaurant at this location. North Beach Pizza is proposing to occupy two of the four existing storefronts on the ground floor, which are presently vacant. There will be no physical expansion of the existing building. Conditional use authorization is also required to use a patio at the rear of the property for outdoor seating. The proposed use is not "formula retail" as defined in Section 703.3 of the Planning Code.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Dennis Laboth - North Beach Pizza

- He would like to have his project approved.

- They want to remain in North Beach.

ACTION: Approved with Conditions: Three conditions were modified (No. 2, 13, and 14), and one new condition was added (No. 20):

2. The authorization granted herein shall be valid for a period of eighteen (18) months from the date of the adoption of Motion No. 16857 and shall become null and void after that time if the building, health, or other required permits have not been obtained.

13. The proposed exterior alterations shall be in general conformity with the design of the existing storefronts, with the intent to preserve the architectural character of this Contributory Building to the North Beach Historic District:

a. Maintain the building's original pattern of storefronts, windows and doors, divided by columns.

b. Maintain the prevailing pattern of traditional awnings.

c. Maintain the second entry and doorway, to preserve the small storefront nature of Grant Avenue, and allow for the possibility of re-subdivision of the space in the future. The Project Sponsor shall make best efforts to maintain the original demising wall between the two storefronts.

d. The Project Sponsor is encouraged to use the State Historic Building Code to minimize alterations to the building's historic fabric.

14. VentilationNew or relocated ductwork shall not be located on the sides of the building facing Grant Avenue or Union Street and shall not obscure any residential windows on the upper floors of the subject building.

20. Pursuant to Section 722.27, the hours of operation for the restaurant shall be limited to the hours between 6:00 AM and 2:00 AM.

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

MOTION: 16857

11a. 2004.0463C (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

470 CLEMENTINA STREET - north side, between 5th and 6th Streets, Lot 073 in Assessor's Block 3732 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 157 and 204.5 to allow seven off-street parking spaces, for a new 12-unit building, in excess of accessory amounts in the South of Market Residential Service District (RSD) with a 40-X/85-B Height and Bulk Designation, and in a Mixed Use Housing area, pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 16727.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Eddy Sang - Project Sponsor

- There will be 24 dwelling units and 14 parking spaces.

- Everyone in the neighborhood expressed that there was a need for more parking spaces.

- He will be loosing two units and additional parking spaces.

- The project is within the envelope.

(+) Jeremy Nelson - Transportation for a Livable City

- They are strongly in support of the project and strongly against the off street parking.

- This area has had a number of accidents involving pedestrians.

ACTION: Disapproved

AYES: Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague

NAYES: Antonini and W. Lee

MOTION: 16858

11b. 2004.0464C (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

475 TEHAMA STREET - south side, between 5th and 6th Streets, Lot 082 and 083 in Assessor's Block 3732 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 157 and 204.5 to allow seven off-street parking spaces, for a new 12-unit building, in excess of accessory amounts in the South of Market Residential Service District (RSD) with a 40-X/85-B Height and Bulk Designation, and in a Mixed Use Housing area, pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 16727.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 11a.

ACTION: Disapproved

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, S. Lee, Olague

NAYES: Antonini and W. Lee

MOTION: 16859

Item 12 was taken out of order and heard prior to item 9.

12. 2003.0657C (G. CABREROS (415) 558-6169)

1730 VAN NESS AVENUE - east side between Clay and Sacramento Streets, Lot 019 in Assessor's Block 0622 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code, to allow the expansion of an institutional use (American Buddhist Cultural Temple) (Section 209.3), the creation of a commercial space above the ground floor (Section 209.3), construction of a building exceeding 40 feet in height (Section 253), and exceptions from the prescribed bulk limits (Section 271) in an RC-4 (Residential Commercial Combined, High Density) District, the Van Ness Special Use District and an 80-D Height and Bulk District. The project would result in a four-story building up to 80 feet in height containing a sanctuary, a bookstore, group housing for monks, a dining hall, dormitory rooms for students, conference rooms, offices and various other rooms associated with the institution.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 2, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: an appeal of the environmental Categorical Exemption was filed just prior to this hearing. Until this issue is settled, the item cannot be heard by the Planning Commission.

13a. 2004.0070D (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

23 EUREKA STREET - east side between 17th and Market Streets, Lot 048 in Assessor's Block 2649 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.02.12.6324, proposing to raise the existing noncomplying rear building 5'-6" to create habitable area at the ground floor. The proposal includes constructing a deck and reconfigured stairs at the front of the building and infilling the light well at the southeast corner of the building with a one-story addition. No work is proposed for the two-unit building at the front of the lot. The property is located in a RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications.

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Bruce Bonacker - Project Architect

- The concerns are that there will be loss of sun and privacy, and a reflective glare will be produced.

- He displayed a drawing showing how the new project will impact the Discretionary Review requestor's home.

- The project sponsor has not been available to review and comment.

- The surrounding buildings are taller, but they are built as cottages instead of in the mid-block open space.

(-) Chris Christensen

- He is representing the residents of the building. He submitted a petition representing people who are opposed to the project.

- He is wondering why the structure cannot be lower. The building is already on space that should be open.

- These projects hardly ever turn out the way they were promised.

(-) Vanesa Weisbrod

- She is speaking on behalf of her grandmother.

- The proposed project would intrude on her privacy.

- Loss of light would be detrimental to her health--she is 80 years old.

- Since her grandmother cannot go out that often, she enjoys staying at home and enjoying the sunlight that comes in.

(-) Amanda Powers

- Her kitchen is what her family uses as a family room.

- The proposed project will definitely interfere with her privacy.

(-) James Hutchinson

- He has lived on 17th Street for many years.

- The proposed project will block valuable daylight.

- He does not understand how the project sponsors have been able to live in their home for eight years just fine and currently decide to expand and now the neighbors have to live in their shadow.

(-) Michael Cobb

- Mr. and Mrs. Hamil are fabulous people.

- They are not harming him in any way.

- But the people that have spoken in favor of the project, do not live close by.

(-) Juan Crovetto

- He would not like to see anything changed with the new construction.

(+) Nancy Hamil - Project Sponsor

- They have been residents of this house for 11 years.

- They simply do not have the money to purchase a new house. If they are not allowed to renovate, they will have to move out of the City.

- The increase is not that large.

- Their home is quite small.

- They have tried to minimize the impact on the neighbors.

- All of the surrounding structures will still be taller than their home even after the renovation.

- They have MUNI underground next door so there are a lot of vibrations. They are not looking for master bedrooms either.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved as proposed

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

NAYES: Olague

13b. 2004.0070V (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

23 EUREKA STREET - east side between 17th and Market Streets, Lot 048 in Assessor's Block 2649 - Request for a rear yard variance for Building Permit Application No. 2004.02.12.6324, proposing to raise the existing non-complying rear building 5'-6" to create habitable area at the ground floor. The proposal includes constructing a deck and reconfigured stairs at the front of the building and infilling the light well at the southeast corner of the building with a one-story addition. The project is subject to a rear yard variance request for the expansion of a non-complying building that is located within the required rear yard. The property is located in a RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

ACTION: The Zoning Administrator Closed the Public Hearing and granted Variance subject to standard Conditions of Approval.

14. 2004.0495D (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

2142 40TH AVENUE - east side between Quintara and Rivera Streets, Lot 042 in Assessor's Block 2178 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.11.17.0325, proposing to construct a two-story horizontal addition and stairs at the rear of the building and construct a one-story vertical addition on top of the building, located in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and approve the Project.

ACTION:

(-) Hammet Yu - Discretionary Review Requestor

- They are enjoying their family life.

- Their house is located in the back of the permit applicant's house.

- They have a 180-degree view and the proposed project would block that.

- They have no objection to the project sponsor's horizontal extension but they do object to the vertical extension.

(-) Eileen Boken

- She is opposed to the project because of the size of the project and for neighborhood character.

- When this neighborhood was built, it was designed with very few parks. The neighborhood was single-family homes.

- The back yards should be preserved for open space.

(-) Mavis Nathan

- She has never received any notification of this project. Her neighbors notified her.

- She objects to the project because the project would set a precedent in favor of much larger homes in the neighborhood.

- This will change the character of the neighborhood.

(-) Deborah Brown

- The character of the neighborhood would be disrupted if this project were approved.

- She questions how the Code would allow houses this high in this neighborhood.

- In this area of the Sunset, there are no other three-story houses.

(+) Steven Lee - Project Sponsor

- He and his wife have been living there for nine years and they want to remain in the neighborhood.

- They want more space to accommodate their family.

- There are various homes in the neighborhood that are three stories tall.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project.

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

15. 2004.0535DD (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

2059 23rd AVENUE - west side between Pacheco and Quintara Streets. Assessor's Block 2143 Lot 015 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004 0312 8471, to construct a two story addition to the rear of the existing dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential House, One Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Project with Modifications

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Ray Chang - 1st Discretionary Review Requestor

- There are only five houses on the block that have ever been renovated or extended.

- The proposed project does not fit into the character of the block or our neighborhood.

- There does not seem to be any consideration of the Residential Design Guidelines.

- If the project goes through as is, his home will be devalued.

- The project sponsor suggested painting the wall where the addition is going to be. He does not care about the color because he does not want that wall there.

(-) Marcela Roar - 2nd Discretionary Review Requestor

- None of the neighbors in the area were notified until they received notification from the City.

- They are concerned about the negative impact this construction will have on their homes, open space and the integrity of the neighborhood.

- The project should be modified by reducing the height 12 feet and the rear extension 18 feet.

- Her husband gets up at 5:30 a.m. to walk or jog so he goes to sleep early. [The way the houses are now we] can hear noises from the adjacent house. She requested that a sound wall be installed. A building inspector should also be hired to ensure that the materials used in the project are of the highest quality.

(-) Eileen Bocken

- She opposes the project. She lives one block away from the project.

- The size is too massive and she is concerned with its compatibility with the other homes.

- There have been a number of transactions in the Assessor's records.

(-) Sara Del Monte

- She lives in the neighborhood.

- She does not see why the project sponsor needs to build such a monstrosity.

- The homes in the neighborhood are single-family homes.

- She treasures San Francisco enough [to oppose this].

(-) Ellen Chiang

- She was born and raised in San Francisco.

- This addition is too large for the mid-block open space.

- The area is zoned for single family homes.

(+) Rex McClain - Project Architect

- The project sponsors want to add bedrooms and a bath.

- The project sponsors have a large family.

- He feels that having four bedrooms is not an unreasonable expectation.

- Although leaving the first floor open is odd to the project sponsor, they will be using the space as a covered out door patio for their children to play when there is bad weather.

(+) Victoria Liveron

- She and her husband are planning to have another child for a total of three.

- Many of the homes in the neighborhood have gone through renovations.

- They have tried to design the smallest possible addition allowable.

- The empty space on the first floor will be used as a family room or as an enclosed play area.

(+) Alex Liveron

- The requestor's bedroom has a large top to bottom patio door where sun will not be blocked.

- They made an offer to the Discretionary Review requestors in order to deal with the issues they have.

- He has a list of things that they would like to offer to the DR requestors that is available to the Commission.

- There are support letters from the neighborhood.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and modified the project by: the two story horizontal rear addition is not to exceed 13 feet from the existing rear wall.

AYES: Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

NAYES: Bradford Bell and Olague

16a. 2004.0323D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

1644 DIAMOND STREET - west side between 28th and 29th Streets. Assessor's Block 7520 Lot 007 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2004 0303 7704, to demolish an existing single family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential House, One Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Project.

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Steve Williams - Representing Discretionary Review Requestor

- Single-family homes are being lost.

- This housing is occupied and has been occupied since it was first purchased.

- The intention from the beginning was to destroy the house.

- The soundness report does not have accurate figures.

- The size of the lots is small and extremely substandard.

- This house should be saved. The 3-½ foot setback should be retained.

(-) Suzanne Dumont

- She is opposed to the project because it will demolish perfectly sound housing.

- This demolition should not go forward. It is just an excuse for expanding.

(-) Marilou Lascari

- She is opposed to the demolition.

- The Commission can save the wholesale [demolition] of single-family homes.

- She urged the Commission to keep small houses.

- The Residential Design Guidelines should be applied.

(-) Michael Redmond

- He has lived on Diamond Street for over 25 years.

- The houses in the area are modest and unpretentious.

- There are no other four-story houses on the block.

- The project will tower over his house and block his light and air.

- He has signed petitions from 41 neighbors who oppose the project.

(-) Winnie Siegel - Little House Committee

- She speaks for preservation.

- The Commission should decide for repair and not demolition.

- The house could be purchased as a starter home.

(-) Mrs. Anderson

- She opposes the demolition.

- There have been eight demolitions and new constructions recently.

- Because of these projects, the noise and traffic is affecting the neighborhood.

- There are no buildings that are four stories over garage.

(-) Klaus Wirsing

- The three houses on Diamond Street are a cluster of small lots.

- The new construction will dramatically change the neighborhood.

- There is a lot of anger brewing in the neighborhood.

(-) Dick Meister

- He lives on 28th Street.

- All the points have been made already.

- He is opposed to the demolition.

(-) Margaret Hoppe

- She lives four doors down.

- She is opposed to the monster homes going up in the neighborhood.

- She read a letter from Vicky Rosen who is opposed to the project.

- The proposal is not harmonious with the neighborhood.

(-) Mr. Anderson

- This type of redevelopment in the neighborhood is hurting it.

- If a modest addition is intended, then it should be done following all the requirements and communicating with the neighbors.

- There will be a lot of construction noise as well.

(-) Harry Jeong

- He lives across the street from the subject project.

- He requested Discretionary Review on this property.

- He sees that only cosmetic renovations need to be done to the project.

(-) Gerry Meister

- She lives on 28th Street.

- Most all of the points have been made and she wanted to echo the sentiments.

- She opposes the demolition.

(-) Peter Culley

- He is a registered Structural Engineer and has been for about 40 years.

- Many of the previous speakers have questioned the logic of the soundness report.

- He examined the site and determined that there is no hillside sliding.

- He gave a technical explanation of why the house does not need to be demolished.

(-) Joe Butler

- There is a small wide lot.

- This proposed construction will tower over the adjacent houses.

- He showed photographs of how the project would cause shadows over the neighbors.

(-) Judith Hoyem

- The planning code has priority policies to preserve existing character. It seems extremely wasteful to demolish this house.

(+) David Mielder

- There have been recommendations to reduce the a section by 12 feet and pull the house back from the property line by three feet and the new plans reflect that. The back area has been lowered an additional three feet.

- The other issue here is the rights of a property owner compared to the rights of the neighborhood.

- Since this has to be negotiated with the people that it impacts, they have made revisions to the plans to reflect their issues.

- He mentioned that although this is the developer's project, he as well and the project architect live in the neighborhood.

(+) James Lee

- He displayed a photograph showing how the soil in the back of the house is pushing the upper portion of the house.

MOTION: To continue to October 7, 2004

AYES: Antonini, Hughes, W. Lee

NAYES: Bradford Bell, S. Lee, Olague

RESULT: Motion failed

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and disapproved the demolition.

AYES: Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague

NAYES: Antonini and W. Lee

16b. 2004.0535D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

1644 DIAMOND STREET - west side between 28th and 29th Streets. Assessor's Block 7520 Lot 007 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004 0303 7707, to construct a new single-family dwelling, four stories in height in an RH-1 (Residential House, One Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Project.

SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for 16a.

ACTION: In case the Board of Appeals overturns the Planning Commission's decision on the demolition, they [the Commission] took Discretionary Review and approved the project as modified:

1) The height of the portions of the building within twelve (12) feet of the north property line shall be reduced in height by twelve (12) feet.

2) The building shall be setback a minimum of three (3) feet from the north property line.

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

17a. 2004.0338DDDV (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

755 22nd AVENUE - west side between Cabrillo and Fulton Streets: Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 1665 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.09.29.6087S, proposing to construct a three-story horizontal extension at the rear of the existing three-story single family dwelling unit and to add an additional dwelling unit at the ground floor. The rear addition would increase the structure's depth by approximately 6 feet into the rear yard in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 2, 2004)

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Steve Williams - Representing 1st Discretionary Review Requestor

- Many people of the neighborhood will speak on the importance and beauty of the mid-block open space.

- This area is a real garden to all the neighbors.

- There is a history of various Discretionary Reviews in this neighborhood.

- The recent history is that his particular applicant was a Discretionary Review applicant.

- He submitted a copy of this Discretionary Review.

- There are some representatives from PAR who are here to speak against the project. They tried every effort to solve the issues.

(-) Francesca Pera - 2nd Discretionary Review Requestor

- This mid-block open space is very special for everyone on the block.

- This project would extend to the maximum allowable buildable area.

- The subject property is one of the largest on the block already.

- A proposal for a large remodel was approved by the Commission for another neighbor. However, there were conditions and reductions made to that project.

- Therefore, it would be appropriate to take Discretionary Review because the design of the project is not compatible with the neighborhood.

- The mid-block open space is a natural resource that the neighbors must protect.

(-) Sandra Fewer - 3rd Discretionary Review Requestor

- She has lived in the area for over 18 years.

- Her home is three houses away from the proposed project.

- Her back yard is comparable to a private park.

- All the neighbors have shared and respected the mid-block open space.

- Light and air enter every window of her home.

- The proposed project would be the largest house on the block.

- This project is not about six feet, it is about neighbors abiding by the process and being successful in coming to an agreement.

- The parking situation in the area will only get worse.

(-) Camille Hamilton

- Their mid-block is so rare and so exceptional that they are working hard to preserve it.

- This project cannot be decided upon on a "one size fits all" policy.

(-) David Pating

- He lives on 22nd Avenue.

- He displayed various diagrams of suggested floor plans but the project sponsor rejected them.

- He asked that the project be reduced three feet.

(-) Peter Winkelstein - PAR

- They support the Discretionary Review requestors because of the uniqueness of the open space.

(-) John Fewer

- He lives on 22nd Avenue.

- The applicant has misled the Commission on various exhibits.

(-) Jeff Pera

- He and his wife have lived in the neighborhood for about 5 years.

- They are concerned about preserving the mid-block open space.

- If approved, the project would set a precedent for other projects.

(-) Steve Artus

- He lives on 23rd Avenue.

- The neighbors have tried really hard to reach a settlement.

- He urges the Commission to take Discretionary Review.

(-) Colen Fewer

- She lives on 22nd Avenue.

- The back yard is a haven to her.

- The park in the middle of the block is spectacular.

- She asked that the Commission help them preserve it.

(-) Raymond Holland

- He lives on 23rd Avenue.

- This is the third in a line of deficit decisions.

- This is a unique open space and he hopes the Commission will grant discretionary review.

(+) Andrew Junius - Reuben and Junius - Representing Project Sponsors

- There have been a lot of misrepresentations and lies said.

- There are many neighbors who support this project.

- There have been numerous meetings and numerous design changes to deal with the issues.

- The project is only asking for six feet on the upper and lower floors.

(+) Marisa Singer

- Her clients have been very concerned about the open space in the back.

- They are also maintaining most of the Edwardian style house.

(+) Jeff Nemy - Project sponsor

- He thanked staff for all their help and support.

- Many neighbors have been able to remodel their homes and now they are telling him how to remodel his home.

- Many people have given testimonies today that are not true.

(+) Betsie Nemy - Project sponsor

- She has lived on 22nd Avenue for about 40 years.

- She has a stove that is on the back porch without even a sink. She does not even have all the things needed for a kitchen in one room.

(+) Cliff Gardner

- He has lived in the Richmond since 1997.

- He renovated his house when his family got larger.

- As he looks at the project, this is all about six feet.

- This beautiful Edwardian will be brought to modern times.

(+) Edward Lee

- He has lived in the Richmond for about 12 years.

- He is aware of the beautiful mid-block open space.

- The project is fully within the codes of San Francisco.

- He suggested that the Commission look at the facts instead of the emotional hyperbole.

- The design does not foster a negative impact as suggested by previous speakers.

(+) Tony Maurovich

- He has lived on 22nd Avenue for many years.

- Six feet will not diminish the open space.

- The project sponsor should be allowed to build as proposed.

(+) Oblio Jenkins

- The designs of the plans are great.

- The project sponsor has tried to maintain and preserve the mid-block open space.

(+) Nick Ames

- He has been to the project sponsor's home and the kitchen is in a terrible situation.

- It is important that a community come together instead of fighting each together.

(+) Allan Foster

- The project sponsor has been more than reasonable. His project should be approved.

(+) Steven Nemy

- His home in San Francisco is nice and his friends are here.

- All men are created equal.

- They are trying to make us think they are nice by creating a block party.

- They get to remodel and now they are not letting us do the same.

(+) Julia Nemy

- She is outgrowing her house.

- All men are created equal so please approve the project.

(+) Jeremy Nelson

- They support the parking variance because it allows more flexibility for parking and a more efficient use of space.

- There are no policy merits to allow independently accessible parking.

- If the parking variance is approved, he requested that it [parking] be unbundled.

MOTION 1: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project.

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Olague

NAYES: Hughes and S. Lee

ABSENT: W. Lee

RESULT: Motion Failed

MOTION 2: Take Discretionary Review as approve as modified: Do not extend rear wall beyond adjacent property to the North.

AYES: Hughes and S. Lee

NAYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Olague

ABSENT: W. Lee

RESULT: Motion Failed.

ACTION: In the absence of a substitute motion, the permit was approved as proposed.

17b. 2004.0338DDDV (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

755 22nd AVENUE - west side between Cabrillo and Fulton Streets: Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 1665 - The proposal is to construct a three-story horizontal extension at the rear of the existing three-story single family dwelling unit and to add an additional dwelling unit at the ground floor. A Variance is sought from the off-street parking requirements of Section 154, as the project would provide a 2-car tandem parking configuration rather than independently accessible parking as required by the Planning Code. The subject property is within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 2, 2004)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 17a.

ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and granted the variance.

18. 2004.0792D (D. DiBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

26 JOICE STREET - east side between California and Pine Streets: Lot 024 in Assessor's Block 0256 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.02.20.7886S, proposing to construct a vertical and horizontal addition and to renovate the existing two-story single family structure. The vertical addition adds two new floor levels and the horizontal addition maintains the existing rear yard depth, while extending each floor level for the entire lot width. The subject property is within an RM-3 (Residential, Mixed, Medium-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project.

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Madelyn Lee - representing the Discretionary Review Requestor

- She is the daughter of the Discretionary Review requestor.

- The horizontal addition will block out the sun.

- They were not aware that the person next door was going to do remodeling.

- A few months ago, there was some concern about the light.

- She is worried that the project sponsor did not talk to her mom about the project.

(+) Dennis Lee - Project Architect

- This is a very narrow property.

- They looked at different design options to meet his client's needs and respect the height and block face.

- He tried to incorporate the existing block face and height limits.

- He feels that the project does not have severe impacts on the neighbors.

(+) Mitchel Hong - Project Sponsor

- He has lived in San Francisco for more than 50 years.

- The lot is too narrow.

- He has support from the neighbors.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague

ABSENT: W. Lee

G. PUBLIC COMMENT

At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

The Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment. In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:

(1) responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or

(2) requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or

(3) directing staff to place the item on a future agenda. (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))

Jeremy Paul

Re: 170 St. Germain

- He was unable to speak last week when this case was discussed during Director's Report.

- His personal integrity was questioned and he wants to clarify some issues.

- There was a notice of violation issued on August 6, 2004 and a complaint on August 6, 2004.

- He had spoken to the district building inspector at that time. He had also reviewed the permit and seen the photographs that the Discretionary Review requestor's representative had illegally entered the site to take. The inspector visited the site and was not concerned because he had determine that the house was not habitable.

- After the public hearing was held in July 2004, another inspector was assigned-different from the one who issued the notice of violation.

- If the Commission or staff have any questions, he is available.

- He has been doing this for 15 years and has never worked on a case that has caused so much staff time.

Adjournment: 11:30 p.m.

THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2004.

Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Commission or Department. All written or oral communications, including submitted personal contact information, may be made available to the public for inspection and copying upon request and may appear on the Department's website or in other public documents.